12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

We all hear about how Hispanics and blacks are against gay marriage by a large margin and that they are helping oppress change, ect ect.

Minus the fact that blacks take up 12.4 (Give or take a .1) percent of the population and minus the fact that out of that 12 percent only a fraction are able to vote AND minus the fact that out of those who are able to vote only a fraction actually get up and go the polls this rhetoric keeps popping up.

In fact, out of the demographics listed in this video that aren't specifically white, blacks make up a nominal portion of those individuals (Tea Party members, Republicans, ect ect)

Video:

The five groups that oppose equality at a higher percentage than they support it

Less Educated white people, 56% oppose equality

People over 65, 58% oppose equality

Republicans, 69% oppose equality

Evangelical protestant white people, 73% oppose equality

Tea Party members, nearly 100% oppose equality

So, can we be done with not only perpetuating this myth that blacks oppose equality the most, or at a higher rate than anyone else?

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

Can we not argue about the statistics of it all and just be happy that there's a chance that ANY states will be legalizing gay marriage in the near future...assuming the Supreme Court doesn't do it for them?

My own state of Ohio will more than likely have an issue on the ballot this November to overturn our State amendment banning gay marriage, which at the time of passing in 2004, was one of the strictest ever made into law. It makes me so happy that this initiative even exists. Pass or fail, the fact that there is enough support for it in this state that we get to vote on it at all is amazing and would have been impossible as recently as a year or two ago.

Someone asked me once how I could know that I'm gay if I've never slept with a woman. I've never shoved shards of glass into my eye, either, but I don't have to give it a shot to know that it's not for me.

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

The additional 12-state figure given by Ned Flaherty is unrealistic to say the least. I agree with razorzedge, that an additional nine states in the next two years is the most we can get.

The remaining legislative battles in blue states are Rhode Island, Illinois, Minnesota, Hawaii, Delaware, and New Jersey. The Supreme Court is also likely to overturn Proposition 8 for California. That will come to a total of 16 states probably in the next four years. In addition, there may be successful initiated constitutional amendments in Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, and Ohio, bringing us to 21 states by 2017 at the earliest, and assuming we are 100% successful (unlikely). I do not foresee political support in New Mexico anytime in the foreseeable future, having neither the necessary support in committee nor from the governor.

Depending on the ruling, if Prop 8 is overturned in California, it will essentially make invalid any state constitution which doesn't allow marriage for same-sex couples.

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

I'm strongly hoping ( and praying) that the Supreme Court will make gay marriage a nationwide law. If they argue on the basis of fairness and law, I don't see why it wouldn't pass. Most people support gay marriage, according to the last poll.

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

While each state can set its own constitution, am I correct in thinking they largely serve similar purposes? Similarly structured….similar arrangements at the largest scale? Kind of a same-old-same-old situation from one state to another…we all need governance, we all need to delimit the powers of the governor, set some process for the legislature, yadda yadda...

Is there any example in US law of a case where two different states have not just different, but contradictory constitutional obligations or prohibitions?

In the current situation, we have some state constitutions implicitly permitting equal marriage, while others clearly bar it. In other words, "Equality is constitutional" and "Equality is unconstitutional." I wonder if that is unique.

Regardless, I don't think that can stand. No one cares if each state adopts a different process for the passage of a law. But a fundamental disagreement on "what is a right?" seems too thorny to paper over with talk of "a diversity of political opinion" and states' rights.

Those states opposed to equal marriage might have got away with it indefinitely if they had said nothing and just done nothing to allow equality. But by actually stating it is "unconstitutional" they set themselves up for a trainwreck vs. all the other states who acknowledge its constitutionality by allowing, passing, or acquiescing to equal marriage.

I think that in order for California's malignant state constitution to be saved, it will have to be shown that equality is forbidden by the national constitution, and that all the other states were wrong to grant equal marriage. I think that is an insurmountable challenge.

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

The federal form of government and the 10th Amendment guarantee that states can generally make their own rules on family law, so long as those laws do not violate basic constitutional rights.

We are going to find out very soon from the US Supreme Court if that includes marriage equality.

Ahh. This speaks to what I was trying to get at; wasn't sure how to formulate the question correctly.

"so long as those laws do not violate basic constitutional rights." Well, I say the constitutional dragon has been awakened. Had no state enacted discrimination within its own constitution, governments could have continued to rely on evasion and inertia to avoid dealing with equal marriage. "Well it is just not a priority for the people of our state…" or "the existing family law works for the vast majority of our citizens" or "blather blather blather inaction" and the courts would have had very little purchase on their activities. They would have been able to evade questions about whether any right was infringed simply by changing the subject.

But by amending their own constitutions, they can't get around the question any more: they're stating directly that This Thing Is Not A Right™ and that elevates it to a direct conflict about a right to equal treatment in what before had been quibbling about process or the priorities of governance.

The trouble is, for them, other states through their embrace of equality either by the courts or by legislative action or through referenda, have directly said This Thing Is A Right™.

Brought before the Supreme Court and using the national Constitution to settle the dispute, I don't think the Court will be in a position to say that such a fundamental question as the equal capacity to marry can ever be a right in some places but not in others: a uniform standard must prevail. I think the question comes down to telling California they are wrong or telling Maine they are wrong. And I think they will be unable to tell Maine they're wrong.

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

Only the act of denying a license is required to sue the state.

True but the State can hide its motives in denying service to an individual under mountains of pettifoggery. "Well the registration form says Male Spouse and Female Spouse, but the state appropriations committee didn't approve funds to reprint the form, and the complainant's case doesn't take into account our duty to exercise fiscal prudence….yadda yadda tip of the iceberg…"

But when the bigoted states themselves are foolish enough to make it a direct contest between "It's a right" and "It's not a right" I think they'll fail convincingly.

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

Originally Posted by bankside

So yes, indeed, this data suggest that being less educated only causes a problem if you're white. People in other ethnicities still get it, even if they do not have post-secondary education.

I would guess that less-educated white people are by far the strongest demographic for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, etc.

"Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking." -The Scarecrow, WIZARD OF OZ, 1939"If Hitler is dehumanized and shown only as a devil, any future Hitler may not be recognized, simply because he is a human being/" - SWASTIKA, 1974Make, for a man, a fire - and he'll be warm for a few hours. Set a man afire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying. - Terry Pratchett

Re: 12 states poised to have marriage equality over the next two years; The black demographic is not in the five opposing.

He won't attract a variety of groups, including Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Dominicans. Rubio has done next to nothing to attract a wide majority of Latinos. And since 63% of Latinos in the US are Mexican-American, that says it all really.

That only shows the number of people from those ethnicities, not the number of people eligible/registered to vote. Regardless, it's pretty telling that in order to win over the Mexican vote (the largest Latino group), a candidate will need to have an immigration policy that's friendly toward illegals. Such is the America of today!

So, even if you take the most optimistic figure (lowest percentage) of blacks supporting prop 8, it would still be well above the average for everyone else.

Everything I wrote above is just the first part of why I stick it to the black community about this issue.

The other part is they ought to know better! White people have been living with white privilege for centuries. At least white people have an excuse to not be able to empathize with an oppressed minority group. But come on, black people ought to know better than picking on another minority group.

Overthrowing one tyrant to become another...

Generalizations are silly and in this case offensive. I couldn't find 2008 black population information, but in 2010 the percentage of blacks in California was 6.6%. It stands to reason that the black population hasn't changed tremendously since 2008, so let's use that figure for the sake of the discussion. Can 6.6% decide a proposition?